Re: RFD: Architecture field being retarded? [was: How to specify architectures *not* to be built?]
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 04:30:01PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> This proposal would also allow, say bochs, to provide i386 too (although
> I think more work might be needed here).
This would be stretching it, but if bochs can run them transparently, maybe.
In particular, you would need a good scoring/hint/feature system if running
the i386 version is in any way worse than a native recompile, which it is,
because bochs is slow. I think that doing something like this is
theoretically with possible with my proposed scheme, but likely impractical
for Debian to attempt.
> Just one very minor criticism: It would be nice if you could somehow
> depend on a particular kernel version, eg 2.4.x or greater.
I actually mention that this is possible in the text, my example is a
versioned dependency on the linux 2.2 proc fs interface.
> Consider
> libc6 for instance, it only works now with new kernel versions. However
> that is probably another can of worms that I don't want to get into
> here.
The main problem with this is that you can change the kernel you use to
boot, if you have several installed. In fact, the kernel is often managed
outside the packaging system. However, runtime configuration is not part of
the current packaging system, nor did I consider it in my proposal.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/
Reply to: